A 5 for 2 deal.
To be cap compliant, Rangers will eat partial on salaries for upcoming season only.
To = contract limit also, NY will accept a couple of pieces of deadwood, provided not long term.
So ultimately something like 5 for 4. Satisfies HFB as to a do-able deal.

Also,
special provision:
Everything is as is, including balanced for risk.
Up to Sens to entice players to stay.
If Staal leaves after next year and goes anywhere else, NYR pay nothing (Ott's fault).
If Staal prefers return to NY, then and only in that event special provision kicks in and Sens get 2 #2 picks.

Analysis: IMO
I continue to assert concentrated talent upgrade in difference makers is more essential than balance. Here NY is giving up more total talent to get SPECIFIC better pieces expecting long term they have can add to recover depth they are sacrificing. Ott. is seeking to OVERALL get a lot better more quickly, so their play is for depth now, worry about difference makers later.

Explanations on overall value:
Stepan, Staal, Girardi, (each alone worth more than a 1st) + Brassard (say a 1st if he were not UFA) is high return vs. Karlsson, worth multiple1sts.

Do not want to move Talbot, who is showing Lundqvist-esque numbers at a fraction of the cost. But after next season, he is also UFA, and it is unlikely he will extend extensively because the one thing he presumably wants + deserves -- to be a starter -- we can't offer. So moving Talbot now can be good if return acceptable.

Not even factoring overpayment in 4 for 1 portion, Zibby - Talbot could make sense. Sens obviously not same in net since moving Bishop, and are strong at C.

Zibby is an acceptable risk for top pivot.
I disagree the balance of guys are weak at C. D. Moore is vastly underrated. Miller and Lindy will be fine if they are allowed to play, make mistakes, and discover their form ASAP.

While I would continue to try to bundle for further improvements, I consider that D corp acceptable.
They should not be overplayed. You can rely on this top combo 5 mins or so a game to get an edge, then split them up, to let others share the load and not overplay your stars [i.e., maybe McD- Klein and Allen-Karlsson].

Rangers would need to find a good back up, but that is a decision they would have to make after next year anyway.

While I have pushed moving Stepan + Girardi + for likes of JVR, think adding Talbot and making it Zibby + Karlsson could be the ticket.

Plethora of players involved in a trade that ultimately doesn't improve either team.

You've been on this ride how many times already Bern? Your 37 player swaps don't work in the NHL. They don't work on Hfboards, either.

Girardi has a nmc for the first three years of his new contract.
Staal has 1 year left on his contract.
Brassard is a RFA this summer.
Talbot is a back-up with little value in the NHL, despite his great year.

In case I screw up the link, it was Sens - Rangers thread, iniitial OP about something around Spezza for M Staal.

Lukus in post 29 said:
"I may be the only Sens fan who would be opened to such an offer for Karlsson. We'd have to send some cap the other way and perhaps change Hagelin for a 1st... but the pieces are there for a deal."

In the prior thread, there was mixed reaction by both fan bases, on what was a similar deal minus both Zibinejad and Talbot.

You stand corrected.

Mixed reactions? There were like 2 posters open to the idea, while everyone else rightfully blasted the proposal. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernmeister

In the meantime, now that the perfunctory bernmeister bashing has taken place by the same usual suspects, can we have constructive review based on the proposed elements of the deal?

Elements of the deal? Moving an entire defensive pairing, and an entire line - is that normal?

Why don't your proposals ever have JT Miller, Kreider, or McDonagh in them? Why don't you go offer McDonagh to the Islanders for 7 various assets? Your proposal is a cut/paste, repeat of your last proposal which ended up locked. And the one before that.

After all these years Bern, you still can't create a decent proposals. At least your consistent, I guess...

Quote:

Originally Posted by geisha78

Just because you keep adding more pieces doesn't make it an overpayment. The package proposed is not enough value for Karlsson at all

And even if it did, NYR wouldn't offer it because it would absolutely decimate our depth, and weaken our team short term and long term.

.... Plethora of players involved in a trade that ultimately doesn't improve either team.

Disagree.
Consider both teams improved.

Quote:

You've been on this ride how many times already Bern? Your 37 player swaps don't work in the NHL. They don't work on Hfboards, either.

Your hyperbole again helps make your post meritless.
5 for 4 not excessive.

Quote:

Girardi has a nmc for the first three years of his new contract.

Yes. Forgot to add usual HFB lingo, assume all parties waive NMC/NTCs or similar. Is there any reason why, particularly as he is from points north (forget if closer to Ottawa or Toronto) that he would inherently be so predisposed to demanding such a move out of the question, completely unacceptable?

Is it like Kesler saying he wants out of Van, and he is not waiving to go to Edmonton, or something like that?

Quote:

Staal has 1 year left on his contract.

Indeed. In your haste to paste hate all over me, you ignored the part where I pointed this out in the beginning.

Quote:

Brassard is a RFA this summer.

I stand corrected, thought I had him as UFA.
That makes his inclusion even more do-able and desirable for Sens.
Thank you.

Quote:

Talbot is a back-up with little value in the NHL, despite his great year.

As explained, this I vehemently disagree with.
Since we are committed to Hank, we will have no choice, sooner or later to move Talbot.
I believe his numbers justify such a gamble, and a team in need of help in net would make a prudent gamble.
You can argue about Zibby for Talbot 1 on 1 but in a larger package where Sens are getting both Stepan + Brassard, and already have Turris and may hold onto Spezza (assuming that now they get Stepan + Brassard, it is easier to move Spezza for help), they can afford to part with Zibby.

Quote:

Rangers lines next season with this awful proposal:
Kreider-Zibanejad-Nash
Hagelin-Miller-St. Louis
Ummm-Ummmm-Hobbit
Boyle-Moore-Dorsett

Wrong.
Miller and Kreider are the pair.
Zibby + Nash yes. Can go either way with Pouilot, who has deserved his upgrade, for overall size, etc., or can go with "Hobbit" at LW

"Ummm-Ummmm-" is the sweet Swede line
Hags-Lindy-Fast. Deny it all you want. It is our future, and it will be a winner.

Boyle-Moore-Dorsett -- Moore could play higher. Dorsett, meh, already there, probably replaced by upgrade.
See Zuc at 1st line and Pouilot at 4th, for time being.

Quote:

McDonagh-Karlsson
Moore-Klein
Allen-Diaz

Except we also break in McIlrath,

Quote:

Lundqvist
ummmmm

Yeah, the big ummmm. Again.
What, are you taking up Transcendental Meditation?

A backup is not the end of the world here.

Quote:

Yea. This team sucks. Absolutely sucks.

Ms. Devito, are you .... SURE? [My Cousin Vinny reference]

Quote:

This is not a playoff team.
Not only is it not a playoff team, it's a lottery team w/o a 1st round pick in 2015.

Says you.
Barring injury, you will be proven wrong.
Again.
Like with all that Kreider bashing.

Just because you keep adding more pieces doesn't make it an overpayment. The package proposed is not enough value for Karlsson at all

This is Karlsson.
Not Malkin.

I respect your opinion, acknowledge your point, respectfully disagree.
That's not chopped liver scrubs I have from NY on the table.
The package is good enough without Zib + Talbot, who I added to balance needs of both.

... Elements of the deal? Moving an entire defensive pairing, and an entire line - is that normal?

You are making a play for one of the top D in the league, the counterpart of our McDonagh.
"Normal" is not the benchmark.
The correct ?s are:
What does it take to make such a deal?
and
Is it the net result worth it?

"Moving an entire defensive pairing" is not something for 'in a vacuum, but I would do it for the right player, and the fact that an even better D is being returned leaves only the ? of depth at D. I make this deal, as I am satisfied with enough D after the first pair.

McD and Kreider are foundation pieces.
While I would consider each proposal with an open mind --- unlike some --- I am trying to add. Not coke for pepsi.

As to Miller, we do not have a C who has the speed to really unleash Kreider besides Miller. I recall you saying Brassard and the fluid motion of his hips, or some whatever like that, but results do not support your conclusion.

Results will prove my hypothesis correct.

Quote:

Why don't you go offer McDonagh to the Islanders for 7 various assets?

Again --- pay attention so I don't have to repeat myself:
While I would consider each proposal with an open mind --- unlike some --- I am trying to add.
McD is a foundation piece.
Only Isles foundation piece is Tavares.

Quote:

Your proposal is a cut/paste, repeat of your last proposal which ended up locked. And the one before that.

Not entirely true.
Yes, have to give to get, and am proposing some variation of Stepan + Girardi for a talent upgrade, so in that sense, yes, but otherwise no.

Quote:

After all these years Bern, you still can't create a decent proposals.

Your opinion.
But feel free to eternally stay within your safe box, and never think outside it.
God forbid some creativity should be employed.

Quote:

.... And even if it did, NYR wouldn't offer it because it would absolutely decimate our depth, and weaken our team short term and long term.

Disagree.
Our depth is not/would not be decimated.
It would be a different team, with different pluses and minuses, but I believe our depth is much better now and immediately going forward than it was, say, 5 years ago. So our depth CAN handle it.

I respect your opinion, acknowledge your point, respectfully disagree.
That's not chopped liver scrubs I have from NY on the table.
The package is good enough without Zib + Talbot, who I added to balance needs of both.

Most Sens fans would consider Malkin and Karlsson around the same value. I think that is the disconnect here.

I would argue that if you are honest and not saying emotionally I don't want to trade this player or that player in a vacuum, you can argue each side is getting something it needs, as I postulated in the beginning.

Sens -- expedite development.
Rangers - obtain a block (Zib) and a difference maker (Karlsson), the latter who they need if they are going to prevail vs the elite of the league.

There are people that do not want to bend, buckle and break to that reality, but unless/until other assets develop (which takes time), or are unexpectedly brought in on a swindle (which is rare and can't be assumed) --- that is the reality.

Quote:

5-4 is not excessive?
It's a 9 player swap.
How many 9-player trades have happened in the last decade?

More important is fact that your point is irrelevant, it can be done.
That is the standard, not whether or not it is being done.

However, to oblige you, consider the Nash and Gaborik deals of recent years, NYR and Columbus.
That could have been one larger megadeal, but it was reduced to 2, and principally because there was apparently a perceived need to tweak the first effort.

Quote:

Find me a Sens fan willing to trade Zibby after 20~ games of watching Talbot. You may think it's fair. But there isn't a doubt in my mind you'll find a single Sens fan dumb enough to agree.

As I said and as you ignore, it is not in a vacuum.
Since it is a package where Stepan is going north, they can live with moving Zibby.

If you want to make the point that people don't value Talbot that highly yet, that's a fair point.
But he is worth it!
And someone will gamble at the right price on Lundqvist lite.
It would not be dumb of Sens/fans to do so.

Unless they are 111% really sure about their current goaltending, which facts do not seem to be the case.

Quote:

Karlsson is Ottawa's Malkin. He's an elite dmen in this league who's only going to continue to improve.

That's why the package for him is so big.

Again, if Sens want to keep their foundation piece, fine.

If they want to expedite having a larger core of better players, they have to part with that jewel.

Its a bad idea to trade a unique for a bunch of lesser player. No interest in any of this.

Thank you.
Your vote to keep the status quo and the jewel is noted.

Quote:

Cringe.

As I said in post 21:

"Talbot compares favorably with Lundqvist!"
Zibby for Lundqvist lite, with Stepan + being part of a larger deal while retaining Spezza, should be ok for discussion, unless you feel Zibby will be extra special, or you are totally satisfied with your netminders.

I see Zibby as productive young player. Too early to consider extra special.
But that's me....